Want to see who really runs America? FCC Proposes large scale public wifi network

Microsoft, Google etc vs AT&T, Verizon and the other telecomm companies raping the American consumer and preventing freedom in every way possible - fighting to get to tell the people's government what services it can provide to its citizens.

Wrong, it is allowed in this case under the Commerce Clause as one of the primary functions of Wifi/Internet access is for....Commerce both with international entities as well as between states. It is an actual real use of the Commerce Clause unlike so many things done under its guise which are not.

You have zero ground to argue against this if you really believe in the Constitution.

It's a fantasy goal that isn't technologically or economically feasible right now. Like green energy.

It's okay to say "we hope to get there someday", but it would be a mistake to devote large amounts of public funds to such a project. Someday it will be a no-brainer and it will happen. Not today though.

Wrong, it is allowed in this case under the Commerce Clause as one of the primary functions of Wifi/Internet access is for....Commerce both with international entities as well as between states. .

Click to expand...

To make trade among the states regular ... not to manage trade or implement public works as trade. Then there is the fact that there is no mention of wifi or Internet in the Constitution .. ergo public wifi is illegal

Wrong, it is allowed in this case under the Commerce Clause as one of the primary functions of Wifi/Internet access is for....Commerce both with international entities as well as between states. It is an actual real use of the Commerce Clause unlike so many things done under its guise which are not.

You have zero ground to argue against this if you really believe in the Constitution.

Basic infrastructure doesnt lend itself very well to the magical free market genie. I think the argument against it would be that this would deprive telecom execs of millions of dollars of compensation. So I guess you really have to weigh things carefully.

No and again the law allow Congress to make regular the trade among the states ( ie no boycotts or tariffs ) not to manage trade among the states or to push a public works program and call it trade

Click to expand...

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;​

​

Stop trying to put your bullshit intrepretation on it. You are not a constitutional scholar, lawyer, judge or anything that matters. You are a bleating retard on the internet who watchs stupid youtube videos and claims he knows everything.

Once again, public WiFi falls under commerce, now shut the fuck up, there isn't anything unconstitutional about it you moron.

Then there is the thorny problem of what to do with the states who do not wish to rejoin the union since the Convention frees them of the compact

Click to expand...

We force them to join.

Click to expand...

Good luck with that ... because looking at the ideological breakdown now ...there's a lot more states who would probably pass on rejoining and they tend to be the most heavily armed states as well as the ones with the nukes.

Good luck with that ... because looking at the ideological breakdown now ...there's a lot more states who would probably pass on rejoining and they tend to be the most heavily armed states as well as the ones with the nukes.

Click to expand...

You mean the red states that receive more aid from the federal government than they give? You mean those ones?

Basic infrastructure doesnt lend itself very well to the magical free market genie.

Click to expand...

Can you give a specific example of something that does lend itself well to the free market?

I agree that the free market is not a good tool for delivering basic infrastructure. It's what I've always said and it is an example of how my position on the subject is reasoned and balanced. You like to imply that your position is also reasoned and balanced, but there has never been a single case where you came down on the side of the free market. That's pretty much the opposite of reasoned and balanced.

Good luck with that ... because looking at the ideological breakdown now ...there's a lot more states who would probably pass on rejoining and they tend to be the most heavily armed states as well as the ones with the nukes.

Click to expand...

You mean the red states that receive more aid from the federal government than they give?

Click to expand...

Or they ensure that the government gets to steal as little as possible ... if you can;t leave the system, the best thing to do is crash it

Microsoft, Google etc vs AT&T, Verizon and the other telecomm companies raping the American consumer and preventing freedom in every way possible - fighting to get to tell the people's government what services it can provide to its citizens.

Click to expand...

What possible justification can there be for the Federal government to provide internet access? Seriously? You see nothing wrong with that? WTF?

Microsoft, Google etc vs AT&T, Verizon and the other telecomm companies raping the American consumer and preventing freedom in every way possible - fighting to get to tell the people's government what services it can provide to its citizens.

Click to expand...

What possible justification can there be for the Federal government to provide internet access? Seriously? You see nothing wrong with that? WTF?

Heh, do not think for a moment, the states would allow Feds to control the nukes .... as soon as the pact is broken ... the states would be taking them over ASAP .... they understand that nukes keeps the US military away ( just look at North Korea )...

Microsoft, Google etc vs AT&T, Verizon and the other telecomm companies raping the American consumer and preventing freedom in every way possible - fighting to get to tell the people's government what services it can provide to its citizens.

The cable and satellite companies basically wrote the legislation that gave them their monopolistic business models and which continues to ensure that Americans pay more for less wrt TV and Internet than any other developed country. This is hardly surprising.

No and again the law allow Congress to make regular the trade among the states ( ie no boycotts or tariffs ) not to manage trade among the states or to push a public works program and call it trade

Click to expand...

Well you see, if one states residents have one level of access to internet and another state has more or less...that would be..not standard or regular. Since the internet is now a very well acknowledged and utilized form of commerce it absolutely falls under the prevue of the Congress to ensure it has a basic level of standardization amongst the states. None of this would prevent private companies from having "better" service to compete with other providers.

Yea never mind that they paid to run all that cable and fiber and that is why they had a "monopoly" on it.

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure he is referring to companies laying that cable and fiber pushing for laws that forbid other companies from laying cable and fiber.

I live in such a place. Comcast for the most part has most of PA as subscribers. Where I live some 1950s Mom and Pop operation called Service Electric Cablevision has a PA law enforced monopoly that prevents Comcast from coming in, overbuilding and offering cheaper and better services. We have zero options for high speed internet except these fuckers and Comcast has FIOS run right up to the "Zone" wall which is exactly 1/4 mile from my house. Pretty much DirectTV dishes adorn all of the houses in our area because of this shitty company. The bad part is we can't get Phillies or Flyers games because...Comcast has exclusive rights which they sell to the shit cable company.

This kind of arrangement is far more common than people realized across the nation.

The cable and satellite companies basically wrote the legislation that gave them their monopolistic business models

Click to expand...

Yea never mind that they paid to run all that cable and fiber and that is why they had a "monopoly" on it.

Click to expand...

Um WE THE TAX PAYERS PAID FOR THAT....

Click to expand...

Not for cable tv and fiber...the telcom companies did. My Dad worked for Timer Warner as a construction VP first for the North East then the South East. They spent huge sums laying cable/fiber and continue to spend huge sums back filling the upgrades for capacity. It is hugely expensive.

Yea never mind that they paid to run all that cable and fiber and that is why they had a "monopoly" on it.

Click to expand...

Um WE THE TAX PAYERS PAID FOR THAT....

Click to expand...

Not for cable tv and fiber...the telcom companies did. My Dad worked for Timer Warner as a construction VP first for the North East then the South East. They spent huge sums laying cable/fiber and continue to spend huge sums back filling the upgrades for capacity. It is hugely expensive.

Click to expand...

Kinda makes you wonder why companies like Google would throw so much money away on fiber considering how hugely expensive and unprofitable it is.

Yea never mind that they paid to run all that cable and fiber and that is why they had a "monopoly" on it.

Click to expand...

Um WE THE TAX PAYERS PAID FOR THAT....

Click to expand...

Not for cable tv and fiber...the telcom companies did. My Dad worked for Timer Warner as a construction VP first for the North East then the South East. They spent huge sums laying cable/fiber and continue to spend huge sums back filling the upgrades for capacity. It is hugely expensive.